So it begins. Birthright Citizenship repeal

[JoeTheJuggler]

Should an ILLEGAL not be deported?

Since enforcement funds are finite, and nobody wants to raise more revenues to pay for virtually unlimited enforcement efforts, the federal government, which is tasked with creating a uniform national policy wrt to naturalization (which case law says includes the treatment of all aliens), has to establish a limited policy. That policy, which has led in recent years to record high levels of enforcement (as measured by arrests, deportations and other removals), has been to focus on criminal illegal aliens rather than on non-criminal illegal aliens.

The federal policy balances several interests, not merely removing the maximum number of illegals. Among those interests, are economic impact, foreign relations and humanitarian concerns.

The folks who want us to repeal the first section of the 14th Amendment and to criminalize the very presence of undocumented aliens are forgetting all these interests except one.

And they're usually doing so using bogus arguments based on incorrect facts. (For example, they often claim illegal immigration leads to higher unemployment, but there isn't even a correlation between the two over time, much less evidence that illegal immigration is a significant cause of unemployement. For another example, they claim the federal government isn't enforcing its immigration laws, even though enforcement has been at all time record high levels in recent years.)

Since there's a lack of rational support for that position, I would guess that it's largely apologetics for a position based on xenophobia and maybe even racism.

 

[daenku32]

no worries.

Deporting ILLEGALS is already the law.

we should enforce the law.

We are already enforcing the laws.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Then they must be rational and long-term planners, since their kid can't sponsor them for immigration until that kid reaches adulthood.

Even then it takes time. By immigration rules, the parent has to have lived in the home country for five years prior to being sponsored.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is nothing more than political theater... all form, and no substance. Boy, I'm so happy the GOP has come back to power in the U.S. House

That business of reading the Constitution aloud was exactly that type of theater also.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

As I pointed out in the other thread,

these laws are not intended to pass or to survive a legal challenge. They are just efforts to gin up the base to try and push through a constitutional amendment. Oh, and BTW, did they mention that they want to rewrite the privileges and immunities, due process and equal protection clauses also?

 

[MattusMaximus]

King's bill will fail, the state legislator's bills will fail.

They are not intended to pass. They are intended to gin up the issue so that the real attack can be made on the other parts of the 14th amendment, the due process and the equal protection clauses.

Those other attacks are also destined to fail, and fail miserably, in the courts. I think the real purpose is to gin up the issue for raising money for elections & so that various Republicans can safeguard their seats in the next GOP primary from the Tea Party crazies.

 

[MattusMaximus]

As I pointed out in the other thread,

these laws are not intended to pass or to survive a legal challenge. They are just efforts to gin up the base to try and push through a constitutional amendment. Oh, and BTW, did they mention that they want to rewrite the privileges and immunities, due process and equal protection clauses also?

Yup, it's just the same kind of kookery which comes out of the religious right pretty much every session of Congress when they want to amend the U.S. Constitution to explicitly state the United States is a "Christian nation." It never goes anywhere, but they keep doing it - time and time again - so they can go back to their wingnutty base and say "See? I tried and those damned liberals/socialists/atheists/commies/whatever stopped me again!" The base then gets all fired up for "the cause", and they dump more money into the campaign coffers of those politicians who represent "real Americans", and so the cycle continues...

Politics at its finest

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So then what you're saying is that we should grant the children citizenship, deport them and their parents. And allow them to return at anytime so long as Ma and Pa don't come with them.

If I am not mistaken, that is the way it happens currently.

The only thing I would add is that illegals aren't automatically deported. The enforcement policy targets criminal illegal aliens. So if these parents keep their heads down and don't attract attention, they aren't likely to be deported.

This is what really burns the people who want to change the federal policy. For some reason, these people living lives in our country in a sort of shadow existence but harming no one angers them. They like to scapegoat these illegals who aren't being deported as if all our country's ills were their fault. Their "final solution" to our economic woes would be to deport all illegals and close up our borders.

Of course, that "solution" would cause great damage to our economy, our foreign relations, our human rights record, and so on.

 

[MattusMaximus]

no worries.

Deporting ILLEGALS is already the law.

we should enforce the law.

You might want to read this headline:
Deportation of illegal immigrants increases under Obama administration

 

[GreyArea]

illegal parent(s).

the ILLEGAL parent(s)

the ILLEGAL parent(s)

their ILLEGAL parent(s)

If an ILLEGAL parent has a child

Since when did parenthood become illegal? Are you one of those busy-body bureaucratic types who demands people be licensed before bearing children?

And in the last example listed above, how can they be a parent if they have not yet had a child? In order to be an illegal parent you have to have had a child. There is no "if" involved.

Do you deal with the problem with forced abortions? Is an illegal conception enough to grant conviction of this heinous crime, or must there be an actual birth of a child whose life is not legitimate? Does the adult get the punishment, and if so what punishment should there be? Forced sterilization? Or do you see the problem in the child whose existence is illegal? What then?

Should an ILLEGAL not be deported?
Does the ILLEGAL get an exemption...

ILLEGALS shouldn't be deported?

Deporting ILLEGALS is already the law.

You're missing the noun after your over-capitalized adjective. You should fix that, before anyone concludes that you are saying that these people aren't legally people.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

What should concern everyone is that one of the principle architects of the state effort, Russell Pearce, the president of Arizona’s state senate and the principle sponsor of SB1070, has some well documented ties to neo-Nazi’s, including his son.

Here is a mug shot picture of the son. Note the tat.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I feel like I've read this thread before...oh yeah, it's because I have.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

This is what really burns the people who want to change the federal policy. For some reason, these people living lives in our country in a sort of shadow existence but harming no one angers them. They like to scapegoat these illegals who aren't being deported as if all our country's ills were their fault. Their "final solution" to our economic woes would be to deport all illegals and close up our borders.

The thing is, illegals and their citizen children all pay their share of taxes and contribute to the economy.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The thing is, illegals and their citizen children all pay their share of taxes and contribute to the economy.

The second point, sure. I'll agree with that. And I think a change of birthright citizenship is a bad idea. But I really don't think that it's true that all illegal aliens (from whatever country) pay taxes. That's an awfully big blanket statement to make.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then they must be rational and long-term planners, since their kid can't sponsor them for immigration until that kid reaches adulthood.

I believe so. That would explain why so few do it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What should concern everyone is that one of the principle architects of the state effort, Russell Pearce, the president of Arizona’s state senate and the principle sponsor of SB1070, has some well documented ties to neo-Nazi’s, including his son.

Here is a mug shot picture of the son. Note the tat.

Why should that be a concern or any reason why the law should not be taken on its own merit?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why should that be a concern or any reason why the law should not be taken on its own merit?

I don't think that's what he said. I think that was in addition to all the arguments that show why SB1070 was very bad law.

FWIW, I didn't choose the term "final solution" in my post number 68 by accident either.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The second point, sure. I'll agree with that. And I think a change of birthright citizenship is a bad idea. But I really don't think that it's true that all illegal aliens (from whatever country) pay taxes. That's an awfully big blanket statement to make.

They would have to buy no food, no cigarettes, no liquor, use no gasoline, no utilities, etc. in order to live here without paying taxes. They would only be able to work for cash in order to escape payroll taxes.

While you might quibble over whether or not they ALL pay their "fair share" (a point that you could make about citizens as well), they do all pay taxes.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

They would have to buy no food, use no gasoline, no utilities, etc. in order to live here without paying taxes. They would only be able to work for cash in order to escape payroll taxes.

While you might quibble over whether or not they ALL pay their "fair share" (a point that you could make about citizens as well), they do all pay taxes.

Oh, I see what he intended there. I assumed he meant income tax.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, I see what he intended there. I assumed he meant income tax.

Even wrt income taxes, there is no significant difference between illegals and non-illegals when it comes to paying one's fair share.

I suspect since the numbers are so disproportionate (most of us being citizens or legal aliens), that more legal workers evade their fair share of taxes (and to a much larger number of dollars) than do illegals. In fact, I think the category responsible for most income tax fraud amount to the most lost revenue is the category of natural born citizens born to parents that were citizens (simply because it's the largest category).